Ownership of a vehicle transfers upon payment and delivery, regardless of registration status.

1. Aggrieved by the award dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC), Balod, Distt. Durg (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 4 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs.2,05,400 in favour of the claimants fastening the liability upon the appellant, this appeal has been preferred by appellant dealer of Swaraj tractor and spare parts.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, tire that on 1.11.2007 when Narendra Kumar was sitting on the trolley attached to the tractor, he fell down from the said trolley due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same.

3. A claim case was filed by claimants for compensation of Rs.7,42,000 under various heads against the death of Narendra Kumar. In the claim petition, the appellant Goodwill Tractors was impleaded as non - applicant No. 2, inter alia, pleading that the tractor in question was purchased by Pingal Belsariya, respondent No. 7, from the appellant, who was the dealer of Swaraj tractor involved in the case.

4. Pingal Belsariya, respondent No. 7, contested the claim on the ground that the tractor in question was purchased by him on 15.10.2007 through finance from the appellant and payment towards insurance and registration was also made to the appellant and, therefore, it is the duty of the appellant to pay compensation.

5. The appellant also filed its written statement with the averments that tractor and trolley were sold to Pingal Belsariya, respondent No. 7, on 15.10.2007 and the possession was also given to him on the same date and, therefore, it is respondent No. 7 who was the owner and possession holder of the vehicle in question. It has been denied by the appellant that the tractor and trolley were given to respondent No. 7 for demonstration. According to the appellant, a sum of Rs.4,00,000 was also received by the company through bank draft towards down payment and it was agreed by the respondent No. 7 to pay the remaining amount subsequently. It has also been pleaded that further amount of Rs.1,00,000 was paid by respondent No. 7 on 10.1.2008 and Rs.85,000 is remaining. The appellant also pleaded that after taking delivery of the vehicle, the same was under the overall control of respondent No. 7 and he was using the said vehicle. According to the appellant, he was unnecessarily impleaded in the claim case as non - applicant.

6. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the vehicle in question was given to respondent No. 7 for demonstration purposes and as the same was not registered in the name of respondent No. 7, it is the appellant who continued to be the owner of the vehicle. In para 16 (1) there appears to be some typographical error where it has been mentioned by the Tribunal that applicant No. 2 would pay the amount of compensation to the claimants whereas it should have been non - applicant No. 2, the appellant herein, who was held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. However, this court proceeds to decide this appeal considering the wordings of the entire award wherein liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that ignoring the typographical error in para 16 of the impugned award, the appeal may be decided considering that liability has been fastened upon the appellant by the Tribunal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) that the tractor and trolley was purchased by respondent No. 7 herein after making down payment of Rs.4,00,000 on 15.10.2007 and remaining amount